A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that Michael Mann can proceed with a defamation suit against writers who made false allegations about his scientific work.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that Michael Mann can proceed with a defamation suit against writers who made false allegations about his scientific work.
Founding Member, Ministry of Truth
Good. Took them long enough to get around to doing the proper thing.
Of course, Steyn and Simberg did not make false allegations about Mann's work, which will now be made clear in the process of the court case.
"See, in the last few years...we've stumbled... And when you stumble a lot, you...you start looking at your feet. We have to make people...lift their eyes back to the horizon and see the line of ancestors behind us saying, 'Make my life have meaning.' And to our inheritors before us saying, 'Create the world we will live in.' I mean, we're not just holding jobs and having dinner. We are in the process of building the future."
Outbound
The Frigid Times
http://www.frigidtimes.blogspot.com/
The Mann suit was a "SLAP" suit, anyway - and was interfering with the other ongoing litigation from Mark Steyn.
Mann has been pulling out all the stops to prevent the primary lawsuit from going forward, and this ruling is actually a LOSS for Mann, as now he'll have to get off the pot.
Mann is a complete fraud.
Earl
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Withdraw consent!
In the age of Trump, a climate change libel suit heads to trial
The case is being brought by Michael Mann
of Pennsylvania State University, who is perhaps best known for helping
develop the famous “hockey stick” graph used to illustrate global
warming. Mann is suing two bloggers who accused him of scientific and
academic misconduct in 2012. On Thursday, the D.C. Court of Appeals
unanimously ruled that Mann has the right to proceed with the lawsuit.
“Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles
written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and
published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing
evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice,” wrote Senior Judge
Vanessa Ruiz in the court’s opinion.
The decision suggests that, even as the climate-skeptical Trump
administration comes into office, a high profile lawsuit could be
underway in Washington, D.C., that also partly turns on the evidence
for, and against, climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ads-to-trial/?
Founding Member, Ministry of Truth
Q-tip, you DO realize Mann has been proven to be a complete fraud?
I know you live in la-la land, but wow..............
BBC
Arctic heatwave could break records
Temperatures at the North Pole could be up to 20 degrees higher than average this Christmas Eve, in what scientists say is a record-breaking heatwave.
Climate scientists say these unseasonably warm weather patterns in the Arctic region are directly linked to man-made climate change.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38417198
Founding Member, Ministry of Truth
The opinion by Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz states:The opinion also found that making statements to gain advantage in a "no-holds-barred debate over global warming" are typically protected under the First Amendment. However:
To the extent statements in appellants’ articles take
issue with the soundness of Dr. Mann’s methodology and conclusions —
i.e., with ideas in a scientific or political debate — they are
protected by the First Amendment. But defamatory statements that are
personal attacks on an individual’s honesty and integrity and assert or
imply as fact that Dr. Mann engaged in professional misconduct and
deceit to manufacture the results he desired, if false, do not enjoy
constitutional protection and may be actionable.
http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/doc..._14-CV-126.pdf
... If the statements assert or imply false facts that
defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First
Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.
Founding Member, Ministry of Truth